Invest in Potential, Not Numbers: Reflections for Teachers’ Day

Dear Friends

During 1946–1947, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar traveled every week from Yerkes Observatory to the University of Chicago to teach a class of just two students. When asked why he made the effort, he simply said they were very good students. Those two students—Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang—went on to win the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics, whereas their teacher, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983. 

This story presents a powerful reminder that great teachers invest in potential, not numbers. 

Helen Keller was deaf and blind from early childhood. Her teacher, Anne Sullivan, repeatedly finger-spelled words into Helen's hand, but Helen initially did not understand that the movements represented objects. Then, on 5 April 1887, Sullivan placed Helen's hand under flowing water while spelling W-A-T-E-R into the other hand. Something clicked. Helen suddenly understood that the signs represented the world around her. That day, she learned roughly 30 new words. Helen Keller eventually became an author, lecturer, and internationally recognized advocate.

When Kalam was about 10 years old, his science teacher, Sivasubramanian Iyer, was teaching the class how birds fly. The blackboard explanation did not satisfy the students. Instead of blaming them for not understanding, Iyer took the entire class to the seashore in Rameswaram. He asked them to watch birds flap their wings, use their tails, and change direction. Kalam later described this as a life-changing lesson that helped ignite his fascination with flight and, eventually, with aerospace engineering.

In 1812, Michael Faraday, a 20-year-old bookbinder’s apprentice, compiled a 300-page notebook of Sir Humphry Davy’s chemistry lectures to apply for a job. Impressed by his dedication, Davy hired him as a lab assistant. With Davy's support, Faraday went on to discover electromagnetic induction, paving the way for the electric motor and modern power grids. Years later, when asked to name his greatest discovery, Davy replied: "Michael Faraday."

Some of these events crossed 100-plus years! Still, we remember and appreciate those students and teachers. As in 2026, how many of us could contribute to this scale of impact, either as a teacher or a student? A few! Do we have genuine justification? Absolutely No. Why? As teachers or students, we are losing that kind of mutual trust. 

I am a 5th-generation teacher in my family. I see sea changes in the students' attitudes. Though I did not see my grandfather, some of his students told me he was a noble, scholarly, and most humble teacher. Along with the great teachers of those times, His photograph hung on the walls of the sacred mutt in my hometown. 

I cannot generalize this, but today, the bond between students and teachers is diminishing. In those days, when the teacher passed by, at least on the face, we used to stand, keeping our hands folded, even though we didn’t always like it. Sometimes, it was customary, but many times, it was genuine. Today, the scene is different. Are we receiving such genuine salutations? Do teachers possess such wisdom? 

In the 1900s, a teacher used to take Guru Dakshina, meaning students paid as they wished. In the 1950s, teachers began receiving part salary and part Dakshina. A teacher in the 2000s transitioned to a salary completely. Today, a teacher started contributing to profit and growth. Thanks to inflation and insecurity, genuine teachers are also forced to shift this way. On the other hand, even if an honest teacher wants to contribute to the cause and share knowledge for free, society is not trusting such knowledge and is more suspicious about why they are not taking money. 

As the world is divided on many parameters, I am sure the golden days will return, as current execution models are proving unaffordable and unsustainable.

Wishing you a great teacher’s day coming week; Remembering great teachers!

Ravi Saripalle

The Grandparent Effect: Old Wisdom, New Behavioral Science and Evidence

Dear Friends,

I grew up with both my paternal and maternal grandmothers. My bond was quite strong with both of them. With my paternal grandmother, I stayed in the same house until her death. My father had a condition with my mother—“staying under the same roof” regardless of any little friction, adjustments, or constraints. It was a small 1BHK house, and the second room was made into a kitchen as well as a bedroom for my grandmother and me! On the last day of her life, we were both sleeping in the same room. I noticed her last breath in the middle of the night and informed my parents.

We used to have sweet fights, sweet negotiations over 1 or 2 rupees, and, as usual, a few household misunderstandings at home. In spite of all these things, the bond was never broken. The same

was true with my maternal grandmother, who used to come home occasionally. I used to be an arbitrator between the two grandmothers, as there were always different points of view, like in any other common household.

Despite all this, my father managed to implement the “staying under the same roof” concept. While providing justification, he did not speak in the language of social or behavioral scientists, but he requested that we implement the same concept even after his death.

It was not just one or two families. In that generation, the scenario was the same in most households. In fact, every Shivaratri, we used to perform a drama at night. One of my friends and I acted like our respective grandmothers, talking about their daughters-in-law and their usual complaints. It was great fun, and the grandmothers also enjoyed that reality script!!

Oh, my goodness, why am I taking you to this concept today?

Yesterday, a Facebook article went viral. It was all about this: “Research shows that children with caring, active grandparents may have a 30% lower chance of depression. These children may also have fewer behavior problems and stronger empathy as they grow. Loving grandparents can give children a steady source of comfort, attention, and guidance. Their presence can help a child feel safe, valued, and connected to family.”

In recent times, 4–5 articles have been published in this space.

In India, our ancestors thought about this long ago and made it a way of life. Today, behavioral scientists share a similar opinion, supported by scientific evidence.

Along these lines, Lifen Zhao et al. (2025) conducted a study covering 20 studies involving 11,434 children/adolescents and found that positive grandparenting was associated with lower levels of depression. Riem et al. (2025) studied 10,000+ children and found that, among 3-year-olds exposed to greater adversity, grandparental care was associated with more prosocial behavior and fewer externalizing problems. Xu & Harrison (2023) stressed that greater grandparent–grandchild closeness was associated with lower odds of emotional symptoms, conduct problems, peer problems, and abnormal prosocial behavior. Attar-Schwartz et al. (2009) studied 1,515 adolescents aged 11–16 and found that greater grandparent involvement was associated with fewer emotional problems. Kirby & Sanders's (2014) study of 54 grandparents and 48 parents found that a grandparent-focused intervention reduced reported child behavior problems.

Indian wisdom and ancestral ways of living have been time-tested.

In the last 70–80 years, several influences have changed our lifestyles and thinking. We are increasingly moving towards nuclear families. In many recent marriages, living separately from in-laws has almost become an obvious condition.

Maybe after reading these Western studies, I am sure a big change will happen in our society again. Of course, implementation is not that easy. It requires a lot of adjustment from both ends. However, considering the depression numbers and behavioral issues among children today, it is worth considering this way of living again.

Do you agree?

Ravi Saripalle

Airport Divorce: The Hidden Cost of Modern Separation Methods.

Dear Friends,

Recently, I read an article titled "Airport Divorce: The Latest Travel Trend Helping Couples Fly Stress-Free" among Gen Z and millennial travelers. Initially, it made me curious, but after reading about it, I became more puzzled about the trend!

The entire article summarizes the following.

Partner A: Arrive early → check departure board → find the gate → sit quietly → queue early.

Partner B: Reach the airport at the last minute or browse duty-free → shop → eat → explore → arrive at the gate closer to boarding.

Trying to force both people into a single routine creates unnecessary friction.

So, Temporarily Separate → Follow Individual Preferences → Reunite at Gate/Plane → Travel Together. That's the Airport Divorce.

In a nutshell, Forced Togetherness → Friction → Conflict versus Planned Autonomy → Reduced Friction → Better Reconnection.

Though this is quite a simple concept, if it becomes a worldwide trend, it will be another burden on the marriage system. Already, the family system is struggling with multiple other divorces like Legal divorce (formally ended by law), Emotional divorce (married legally, but emotional closeness disappeared), Physical separation (live separately), Social divorce (the couple gradually stops functioning publicly as a unit), and Financial divorce (financial responsibilities, property, accounts, and economic decisions are separated).

Now, if we add Airport divorce, Commute divorce (travel separately), Vacation divorce (do some holiday activities separately and reconnect later), etc., the law becomes much more intricate and introduces new ideas into the already broken marriage system!!

Let's purely look at it from an economic and environmental perspective. It adds to the cost and significantly impacts carbon credits. On the one hand, we worry about carbon emissions; on the other, we deplete natural resources out of ego. Of course, there are a few genuine cases.

Divorce has measurable economic and environmental costs. Studies show wealth can fall by about 53% for women and 57% for men, while standards of living may decline by 45% and 21%, respectively. Environmentally, divorced households have been associated with about 46% more electricity use and 56% more water use per person, with an estimated 73 billion kWh of extra electricity, 627 billion gallons of extra water, and over 38 million additional rooms in the U.S. Thus, divorce carries not only an emotional cost, but also a significant financial price and carbon/resource footprint.

If we add these new concepts, the implications are much more complicated. These are my observations; my focus is not on airport divorce but on associated costs and carbon emissions. Maybe it is another deep topic in social science research.

Having said that, the consumption of never-married bachelors is less than that of divorced families. We cannot compare these two numbers from a research perspective, as a bachelor starts with one household. Divorce converts one household into two—adding an economic shock to the environmental inefficiency of smaller households.

Anyway, we cannot easily comment on this topic, as there are many reasons for divorce. The ego is one part of the problem. There are many genuine cases that I have personally witnessed. Hence, it is a slightly sensitive and subtle topic. Researchers cannot generalize the issue.

Ravi Saripalle

Won the Battle, Lost the War? What Is Your Equation of Value?

Dear Friends,

Alvin Foo, the famous AI strategist, recently posted a video! It was a 100m race at a school. The first-place winner received a few thought-provoking books, the second received a gaming PC, and the third received an Orange iPhone 17 Pro Max. Interestingly, the guy who won first, instead of feeling happy upon receiving the prize, looked morose and looked at the 2nd- and 3rd-place winners and their prizes. It looked like he was thinking, “Maybe I should have performed slightly worse!” The caption says, “Won the battle, lost the war.”

The obvious interpretation is, “The student who performed best received the prize that may feel least desirable.” The deeper question is, “Who decided what the winner actually values?” If you seriously think about it, they designed it right. The idea is to further inspire him by giving him these biographies of famous athletes. They wanted to nourish his aspirations. Having said that, at face value, it is discouraging from a material-value perspective.

The rewards are of two types—Material value: What is it worth today? Developmental value: What might it make me capable of tomorrow?

When we speak more about material values at home and in college, students/children value them more than developmental values. They are essential. Personally, I also recommend setting a minimum material value; otherwise, we will not be able to survive in this world. However, defining that minimum is becoming an issue at work, at home, and in society.

This has become an interesting question that has popped up in society: Is a salary of ₹1 lakh+, while living with parents and children, better than a ₹50 lakh package, while living far away but supporting relatives financially and emotionally, or a ₹1 crore salary, while living far away and unable to support them in any way?

Recently, a post went viral on PublicNext.com about the requirements of a bride—she earns ₹15K per month but rejected a boy earning ₹15L per year, citing a low salary. Netizens are outraged and said marriage has become a business deal. What is the outcome of this social symptom?

As per my research—and, of course, these figures vary from one context to another—I have arrived at the following figures. India’s headline CPI inflation was 3.93% year-on-year; urban inflation was 3.53% and rural inflation 4.25%. I would define decent as: reasonable accommodation, nutritious food, local transport, utilities, healthcare, some recreation, the ability to handle small emergencies, and 10–15% savings. A Decent Salary = Survival + Security + Dignity + Future. However, this is the most complicated and debatable topic.

However, when someone is spiritually elevated and does not worry about tomorrow, takes life as it comes, and remains peaceful, calm, and composed in any situation, the above definition does not hold true. The reason is that there is another gift called Spiritual Value. Not everybody receives this highest-order prize. I feel it is purely based on our past karma.

Essentially, real education lies in understanding material, developmental, and spiritual value.

Material value depreciates fast. Developmental value decays slowly. Spiritual value endures.

I am not that great at math, but a simple equation can be brought in like this:

E(t) = M₀e^(-λM t) + D₀e^(-λD t) + S₀

E(t) represents how the total value of education changes over time. M₀ refers to the initial material value, such as salary, possessions, qualifications, or immediate benefits. D₀ represents developmental value, including knowledge, skills, confidence, judgement, and personal growth, while S₀ represents spiritual value such as character, purpose, values, wisdom, and meaning. λM and λD indicate how quickly material and developmental values fade with time. Since λM > λD, material value is assumed to decline faster, developmental value lasts much longer, and spiritual value is treated as the most enduring dimension of education.

What is your equation?
Ravi Saripalle